the case of savita- i am a bit confused

Personally, I think that when accounts from women are being provided from their own experience and the experiences of their friends or relatives and then these accounts and examples are being casually dismissed by men who, by their own accounts "did everything but push", says all too much about this issue and the debates.

From what I have read, I see a mixture of opinions from those who are pro choice. I see those who have personally stated that morally, they have probably couldn't or wouldn't choose an abortion, but feel it should be a choice available and those who have openly stated that they would choose an abortion.

The conversation is starting to get very uncomfortable, I'm fine with a debate around the practicalities and even the morals of the issue, maybe even a heated debate (it is an emotive subject), but I'm not comfortable with how some of the responses have gone.

Nobody is a position to judge a woman's state of mind or fears (justified or otherwise, who can control their fears?) when they are pregnant. Whether or not that means or justifies abortions, we can at least accept that those fears and concerns are genuine and not be so dismissive of their experiences or make them feel uncomfortable discussing them.
 

We haven't seen sight of the report yet. And I would have no faith in it because they cannot legislate for the Savita case, in my opinion.

If a womans health is at risk, and it can or could lead to one's life being at risk, but how do you fix that point in time for a doctor. Is it the moment you present in the hospital, an hour later, the next day etc. How on earth would you legislate for that.

It is not relevant to current law to take any account of the fact that the baby one is carrying would have died anyway.

First thing you'd have is a case taken against a doctor arguing that he was incorrect on carrying out an abortion as per the constitutional amendment which states that it's only in the case of a life threat that there can be intervention.

As for suicide being a grounds for abortion as per the Supreme Court interpretation. That had no time limits on it and I don't think anyone in the whole of the country could countenance late term abortions for suicide. So what are they going to do, set up ethics panels to decide who is or is not suicidal. I can see loads of problems with that too. How do you actually measure whether someone is suicidal.

They cannot bring in legislation that goes against the Constitution, and that means another referendum. Maybe the report, and I don't have much faith here, recomends that. I'll be interested to see if they say anything about women's health, which as far as I can tell was central to the Galway case.
 

The suicidal argument, IMO, is quite dangerous. As well as the very valid question you have asked above, if suicidal is a "get-out" clause then suddenly the powers that be will find themselves trying to answer why our national suicide rates are climbing and also answering the same question by saying it's the only work-around women have to get an on-demand abortion (which makes us look extremely backward). More importantly though, it forces a women to present themselves as being suicidal which in itself has to be dangerous to the woman's mental health. Thirdly, existing services for suicide in this country will be stretched to provide for these women who are not actually suicidal.

I sincerely hope I have not offened anyone that has been impacted by suicide in any way above and also am not trying to imply that every woman who wants an abortion will present themselves as suicidal, just that it looks like to me like a possible loop-hole.
 
Course there is also the problem of a woman who the doctors claim is not suicidal but simply hysterical, who does then take her own life as a result of an unwanted pregnancy - what then?
 
It's simply that I agree with the Medical Council when they say "there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."
Bronte said:
As for suicide being a grounds for abortion as per the Supreme Court interpretation. That had no time limits on it and I don't think anyone in the whole of the country could countenance late term abortions for suicide.
Click to expand...
According to the [broken link removed] "In the circumstances of the X case, that meant an abortion but that will not be the result in a situation in which the baby can be delivered without compromising the woman’s right to life. This means that where a woman has a pregnancy that places her life at risk and her foetus is or may be viable, she may have a right to have the pregnancy brought to an end but not a right to insist that the life of her foetus be deliberately ended."
 

+1


I am 100% pro-choice and the main reason for that is that IMHO stigma attached to abortion and even the thought of admitting unwanted pregnancy ('What do you mean you don't want to be pregnant??? What's wrong with you???) is uncomfortable for many women who find themselves in this situation. From my own experience, services (counselling) and information which was provided to me swayed my decision in favour of having a baby but without them, the outcome may have been different. I decided to seek help after I drove around an (no longer there) M50 roundabout a couple of times, contemplating driving down the motorway the wrong way. At that point in time, you can say that I was suicidal BUT being able to talk about my feelings and anxieties and get all the information I needed helped me get back on an even keel. This is the most important part. Women of all ages need to be able to talk about these things not only with trained professionals but also with their families and friends without fear and embarrassment. I had terrible time talking to my husband about this at first as I was terrified of upsetting him or hurting his feelings.


A young female member of my family took her own life for no apparent reason a long time ago. An autopsy was never carried out and the same as with so many other young women, no one will ever know if some of them were pregnant and felt that suicide was the only way. From lack of that information, this case can not be argued properly. However, as much as suicide may be abused as a loophole in obtaining an abortion in theory, I think that it should be taken very seriously as per my comment above. Unfortunately, mental health services could potentially become over-stretched with something which is very hard to quantify and prove.

That's why I am in favor of abortion on demand (under very strict conditions that I won't go into right now) and then it's each individual's right and obligation to reconcile their wishes and feelings with their morals. The most important part, I stress again, is to remove stigma and create an open and supportive environment for those who need it.
 

Re whether would have died anyway - I think that needs to be legislated for (and referendum too) - why have doctors handwringing on whether to act if the foetus/child cannot survive anyway, once that becomes clear (which is fairly early on I gather) I think its only morbid & medically risky to carry a dead or dying child to delivery/miscarriage.

Regarding at what point in time the call is made, shouldnt it be ongoing monitoring, as soon as say 2 doctors form a view that it threatens the life of the mother (or that there are severe risks to the mothers future health), and there is consent, then terminate. Whether that's on arrival or after a day or whenever.

I'd agree that, all things considered, a referendum is needed but maybe best to get all the detail of the proposed agreed legislation first, rather that a yes/no to abortion type question that

a) would in all likelihood give a straight No vote and we're no better equipped to deal with the Savita type cases &
b) would be wide open to interpretation/mis-interpretation as to what the impact of a Yes vote would be (presuming a No means no change). OK even with detailed text there can be cranks mis-interpreting but at least reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions.

Re people taking cases, if two doctors agree its best to terminate & mother agrees that should be it, no comeback in a legal sense. I think the Dad will have to be said by the doctors, its not his life on the line. All cases then routinely reviewed every year by an oversight panel as a safety check that the doctors are acting reasonably (I gather you have these reviews anyway for all aspects - so that if, say, there are lots of c-sections (or whatever other procedure) in a particular hospital that is well off the expected norm its worthy of a query to see are the same standards used everywhere).
 
Id be against a yes/no referendum and would prefer to see a scaled menu of options.

Sorry Betsy, think you made a typo at the end - what did you mean by:
I think the Dad will have to be said by the doctors, its not his life on the line.
Click to expand...
 
There are still going to be many grey areas so it is critical that doctors know what they can and can’t do and they should be able to take account of the mother’s views on the risks to her and her life and health. There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Business Post (can’t link as it’s behind a paywall) by Peter Boylan, ex-master of the National Maternity Hospital. He makes the point that obstetrics is one of the few (only?) areas of medicine where the doctors must make decisions without input from the patient – particularly with respect to their view of the risk that they themselves are facing. If a patient is 100% going to die if the pregnancy is not terminated, the pregnancy will be terminated. But what happens if it’s a 90% chance? Or 60%? He mentioned a cardiac illness Eisenmenger’s which has a 50% mortality rate in pregnancy – is that a real and substantial risk? For me, a 10% risk of death in the next 9 months is real and substantial and I would not want to run that risk. Whereas for a patient is in her 40s, pregnant after years of trying, many miscarriages, no other children to consider – her risk tolerance might be different, particularly if the pregnancy could maybe be nursed along for another few weeks to give the foetus a chance to mature. But in both cases, the doctor has to make the call without input from the patient – and at present, with the threat of prison hanging over him if he is found to have incorrectly assessed a risk as being real and substantial enough. And then there’s the Savita situation – not at risk of death but at a small risk of an illness which carries a small risk of death – it’s not hard to see why the doctor made the decision she did.
Although I don’t think there is any appetite to vote in abortion on demand in this country, I’m not sure a straight yes/no choice would be rejected – there are close to 1M women aged between 18 and 47 who were not old enough to vote in the 1983 referendum – which I think could contribute to a strong pro-choice swing . [As an aside, it has only occurred to be in the last day or so that on this thread (and the post-Savita posts on the other thread), there have been no women posting on the anti-abortion side]. I think what would definitely pass would be threat to life, pregnancy after rape/incest, foetus incompatible with life and, the most difficult to define, real risk to the mother’s health. On the ‘risk to the mother’s health’, I think a majority would want to ensure that situations like Savita and Michelle Harte (had terminal cancer and had to go the UK for a termination) situations don’t occur again – whilst trying to ensure that we don’t end up with abortion effectively on demand like in the UK which is supposed to be a two-doctor-risk-to-health sign-off.
 
orka said:
[As an aside, it has only occurred to be in the last day or so that on this thread (and the post-Savita posts on the other thread), there have been no women posting on the anti-abortion side]
Click to expand...

I dont want to name an individual poster but I believe there is at least one female pro-life poster here.

I think there have been some posts here that would put some people off posting at all - regardless of their own particular view.

You make an excellent point on risk and risk assessment. I have a friend who was told in no uncertain terms by her medical team that she was putting her own health at a high risk to continue with her 8th pregnancy (7 previous miscarriages and past her mid 40s at the time of the 8th). She ended that pregnancy prematurely, on bed rest, and has suffered some chronic life long health problems as a result - but she is very happy with the outcome after almost 2 decades of trying to have a child. But not everyone would be happy to take that risk.
 
truthseeker said:
Id be against a yes/no referendum and would prefer to see a scaled menu of options.

Sorry Betsy, think you made a typo at the end - what did you mean by:
Click to expand...

In a referendum, isnt it always yes or no, but the implications of the Yes would be pre-determined (so its a set menu if you like). I havent heard of a tick whichever option you agree most with.

To be "said by" someone means to put your trust in what they tell you. So another example "I went to by a new TV from Jimmy that I know, the choice was bewildering, I hadnt a clue but Jimmy made a recommendation and since I know him well I decided I'd be said by him."
 
Yachtie thank you so much for sharing your story with us. You are brave indeed. I'm so glad that you are in a much better place now. I was thinking about your story all night as it moved me so much.
 

Women, whose health and sometimes life is at risk have no say whatsoever. Just imagine, that in this day and age, we have absolutely no control on a decision being taken over our life or health. That is exactly the situation Savita found herself in. She knew her health was at risk, she knew the baby was dying and probably because she was medically trained she knew there was a potentional life risk. Her views on the matter were irrelevant and I belive legislation cannot change that because of the amendment to the Constitution does not give us women that right. It give us a right to live only, to be decided by others, who may view the babies right to life as equal to ours.

So let's say we set up a decision making team of 2 doctors, what if their morals are such that a child's life is equal to the mothers despite her life being in danger. What if a mothers health is in danger, but there is only a 1 per cent chance of her life being in danger. There is no way this can be put in legislation.

The only solution is not puttting abortion into the Constitution but taking it out. A referendum on the removal of that amendment is what is needed and instead put in nothing and then leave it up to the Oireachtas (and of course repel the 1861 Act first - that should be done right now - what are they waiting for, this is the one thing the can do, if they had any respect for women right now). If there is a chance of a competing clause in the Consitition than a very simple clause such as

Laws for abortion shall be decided by the Oireachtas

is all that is required and let the law makers than do their job.
 
orka said:
There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Business Post (can’t link as it’s behind a paywall) by Peter Boylan, ex-master of the National Maternity Hospital. .
Click to expand...


Is there any other way of getting that article?

Doctors versus the anti-abortion side

Interesting that there is actually a battle going on here for the first time I think between these two sides. Suddently the doctors have started to speak up on the legal quandry they find themselves and no doubt many of the are disgusted at having to be left in this mess and having to advice the women they see to go to the UK, imagine what that must do to them. Imagine that poor doctor in the Michelle Harte case. And his hands were tied.

The battle for those that don't know it is that the anti-abortion people want the Savita case to be a medical malpractice case. They are categoric that there is no grey area.

The doctors know this is not true, that it is legal minefield for them but up until now they have been afraid, with very good reason, to say anything. It can affect their careers no doubt. Certain hospitals can be run by a certain mindset and doctors well know this. You comply or leave. Which is probably what happened in Galway.
 
Bronte said:
Laws for abortion shall be decided by the Oireachtas

is all that is required and let the law makers than do their job.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that proposal would have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed? As a class, politicians are despised and distrusted by the people. That's why the electorate refused to approve the referendum proposal on Dail enquiries, which would have facilitated the grilling of Sean Fitzpatrick et al.
 
Thanks truthseeker and Bronte! My intention was not really to be brave but it just grates on me when people who have had no relevant experience (in relation to the issue) start bleating on about it. It is a very sensitive and emotive issue and the best people to discuss it are those who can relate to it. Luckily, I wasn't a rape or incest victim and my physical health wasn't in jeopardy but as women know, a lot goes on in pregnancy. Physically (other than having a future baby growing inside of you) and especially psychologically and emotionally.

There was a very good documentary called 'Born of War' about Bosnian women who were raped during the war. I was particularly touched by one who went on to have a baby and was told that it's ok to leave the baby in the hospital if she didn't want him (she had a boy). He was in an orphanage for several years but eventually she decided to look for him. After a long search they were reunited and are still together (he could be around 20yo now). This or a similar case may show that mother's love knows no atrocities and has no bounds, but on the other hand, there were a lot more children and their mothers who have never seen each other and are deeply scarred by what happened to them and how they came into this world. As with anything else, experience of pregnancy (regardless of whether it originates from a stable, loving relationship, one night stand or rape) is so unique to each individual that there is absolutely no way of finding a solution suitable for everyone and putting it on paper other than creating a controlled and safe environment for each individual to excercise their choices.

Another thing that I find very hypocritical is the fact that foetuses miscarried up to 24 weeks (I think, somebody correct me if this is incorrect) are treated as medical waste and incinerated without being registered as stillbirths or parents being given an option of burying them. If you want to give something rights, then the rights have to be through and through.
 
I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.

There is a strong undercurrent in the media which seems to presume that men shouldn’t have an equal voice in this debate as it is a woman’s body and therefore this is a women’s issue. If that’s the case should women who are unable to have children due to medical or age issues also be excluded from the debate?
 
Purple said:
I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.
Click to expand...

Of course! I personally know more than one woman who, while they do love their child, regret how their life has turned out as a result of having that child. Most of them would regret getting pregnant rather than regret not having had an abortion.

But past regrets are meaningless, they could have not gotten pregnant or had the abortion and still had their life turn out in a way that didnt give them happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register